The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
09-2282•Frank Apau v. GREGORY L. COLLETT, District Director for Services (Maryland), USCIS, U.S. CITIZENSHIP
09-2282Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 13, 2010
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2282
FRANK APAU,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GREGORY L. COLLETT, District Director for Services
(Maryland), USCIS, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
SERVICES; MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of Department of
Homeland Security, and DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District
Judge. (1:08-cv-01375-MJG)
Submitted: September 27, 2010 Decided: October 13, 2010
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Caroline R. Ngoubene, College Park, Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Jason D. Medinger,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Frank Apau appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to the Respondents and dismissing his
appeal from the denial of his application for naturalization.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Apau v. Collett, No. 1:08-cv-01375-MJG (D. Md. Oct. 16,
2009); see 8 U.S.C. § 1429 (2006) (providing that “no person
shall be naturalized against whom there is outstanding a final
finding of deportability pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued
under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act”). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.